Buildings speak to us using all of the tools normally found in language: structure (Syntax), vocabulary (Semantics), grammar (Morphology), and, hopefully, a concept (Pragmatics). I think it's interesting to consider this because, while we instinctively referred to buildings as in a style, it may not cover it well enough. "Style" is too limiting. It implies something temporal, frivolous and unimportant. Its first, and probably most common, association is in connection with the fashion industry. And while architecture can often have a lot in common with fashion, there is something a bit more substantial to a building design then to an article of clothing. (It could be a simple matter of what each is made of. Haute Couture may entail as much craftsmanship and design thinking as any building, and may cost as much per square foot but it tends to go out of style or deteriorate a bit more quickly). I see a resistance on the part of architects to refer to their work as being in certain "Style". Their work is deeper and more meaningful than that. Or, ironically, they may dislike the notion of style so much, they feel the need to create one of their own, as a means of true self expression. In any event, the term "Style" has a slightly different connotation from other genres, when applied to architecture.
But, there are two points I want to make here: one is the limited respect for "Style" in architecture, how the architect tries to avoid the question as much as possible while designing and how that limits ones ability to get to a better solution. The second is: the questions around design approach and how it focuses one's investigation. A good way to probe these questions, perhaps, is through the lens of language.